qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] target-i386: move cpu halted decision into


From: Igor Mammedov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] target-i386: move cpu halted decision into x86_cpu_reset
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:11:52 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0

On 08/01/2012 04:00 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 23.07.2012 15:22, schrieb Igor Mammedov:
MP initialization protocol differs between cpu families, and for P6 and
onward models it is up to CPU to decide if it will be BSP using this
protocol, so try to model this. However there is no point in implementing
MP initialization protocol in qemu. Thus first CPU is always marked as BSP.

This patch:
  - moves decision to designate BSP from board into cpu, making cpu
self-sufficient in this regard. Later it will allow to cleanup hw/pc.c
and remove cpu_reset and wrappers from there.
  - stores flag that CPU is BSP in IA32_APIC_BASE to model behavior
described in Inted SDM vol 3a part 1 chapter 8.4.1
  - uses MSR_IA32_APICBASE_BSP flag in apic_base for checking if cpu is BSP

patch is based on Jan Kiszka's proposal:
     http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/100806

Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>

---
Changelog:
  v2:
    - fix build for i386-linux-user
       spotted-by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>
  v3:
    - style change requested by Andreas Färber <address@hidden>

  v4:
    - reuse cpu_is_bsp() rather than open code check if apicbase has BSP bit set
       requested by  Gleb Natapov <address@hidden>
    - hijacked patch [1] to use X86CPU instead of CPUX86State in cpu_is_bsp()

  v5:
    - move Changelog under ---
       requested by: Peter Maydell <address@hidden>

  1) [PATCH qom-next 06/59] pc: Pass X86CPU to cpu_is_bsp()
    SoB: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>
    http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2012-05/msg03185.html

Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>

I'm fine with this patch, including the squashing of my trivial patch
without SoB, but would appreciate someone who knows the APIC (Jan?) to
add an explicit Acked-by.
Andreas,

I apologise for not including explicitly your SoB here. Next time I'll ask if SoB should be included.

Andreas




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]